Quote:
|
I agree with this. However, I feel that this should not be a license to smear or falsely accuse, which is clearly what ultimately happened with Kavanaugh.
|
First, not picking on ZNP here. Just using this one comment to discuss. I see that he is in agreement on part of the following.
I agree that it should be a matter of finding the truth, not making false accusations.
But there is nothing clear about the accusations — true or false. And they are too old to be verified as true or false. So, as much as I believe that Kavenaugh would have the integrity to rule in a truly constitutional manner, I understand that there is enough of a cloud in some people's minds to justify withholding of support. And while we could not convict him (and not suggesting that he could be convicted if there actually was all of the evidence available), to raise to the level of one of the 9 justices of SCOTUS is understandably troubling for some.
And don't forget that failure to convict is different from truly innocent. There was a time when you could legally shoot someone in your yard once they were warned-off and there was any kind of threat perceived. But the legality of it does not leave everyone who shot someone under those conditions OK to serve on the Supreme Court (assuming other qualifications are met). You might never get a conviction. But if BK was considered to have character (at least at some point in his life) that made his guilt questionable, then for this purpose (SCOTUS) it is not unreasonable to withhold approval.
I note that some may argue that he was no longer that foolish kid of decades ago. And I would agree as long as I could verify an actual change in nature. But that does not deny others the right to consider it unacceptable even today.
As for your rant on Sen. Feinstein, I am not unsympathetic to the idea that she was out trying to dig up anything she could. But that does not mean that what she dug up is definitionally tainted. You can't color the veracity of what she found (or claims to have found) solely on the basis of the fact that she wanted to find it and had no desire to find anything to contradict it.
So we are left with mud. And mud slinging. But it is not clear that the mud was not at all warranted. Therefore a different nominee might have been the better course of action. And it might have been better for all involved (including BF and Ford) if the fact of the allegations was brought up privately and the opportunity to decide to bow out was granted without the need for public scrutiny over uncertain allegations.
You seem to want the U.S. government to operate at the standard of a board of elders of the most upright Christian assembly you could find. It isn't going to happen. It is a kingdom of ordinary people with ordinary frailties. And many do not hold to even the pretense of the Christian faith you or I do. Nor the social underpinning of the morality of that faith. Add to that the increasing polarization of the nation, and it is expected that things would go as they did. The Republicans simply refused to even consider back in 2016.
Don't forget that there are many good, upstanding Christians (even evangelical Christians) that voted for Clinton and didn't want Kavenaugh on the Supreme Court.
The ongoing actions and rhetoric of the one who put forward this nomination are such that there should be no expectation that the opposition would not push back with the same kind of vitriol — possibly even the kind of lies — that Trump engages in daily. Having been nominated by Trump would taint even the most qualified candidate (in everyone's mind) just because of the association. I know it's not fair. But then, what is?